26 minutes ago, Andy North said:

This issue has grown legs.

Here's another one.

I didn't even think it was a penalty.

Of course it wasn't a penalty, its ridiculous they now get given. 

Just now, dkw said:

Of course it wasn't a penalty, its ridiculous they now get given. 

 

The ref must have buckled under pressure. The VAR TV he was looking at was right next to the crowd and he would have got serious abuse if he didn't give it. I think that particular element of the VAR system favours the home team. I don't know where we go from here with VAR.

I think the refs need support but they seem to have got it wrong at the moment.

No not a penalty in my eyes either but they seem to be given nowadays for that. We’ll have many of those given against us over the years to come so may get used to those being given.

Didn't they change the law so any arm/hand contact is now a penalty, regardless of intent and/or effect?

3 minutes ago, yorkleyblue said:

Didn't they change the law so any arm/hand contact is now a penalty, regardless of intent and/or effect?

Not quite, as far as I understand it, it works 2 ways. If it strikes any part of an attacking players arm/hand then should a goal be scored because of that it will be chalked off for hand ball (see man city/ tottingham) however for a penalty to be given the defending teams players arm must be in what is deemed to be an unnatural position and outside of what would be considered a normal bodyshape, i.e if while running the ball hit your hand but it was in the normal "armpump" you have while running then it shouldn't be a pen. 

Just now, Bonzodog29 said:

Not quite, as far as I understand it, it works 2 ways. If it strikes any part of an attacking players arm/hand then should a goal be scored because of that it will be chalked off for hand ball (see man city/ tottingham) however for a penalty to be given the defending teams players arm must be in what is deemed to be an unnatural position and outside of what would be considered a normal bodyshape, i.e if while running the ball hit your hand but it was in the normal "armpump" you have while running then it shouldn't be a pen. 

 

If that's correct then it was never a pen. Even if you're wrong it was never a pen. It was never a pen.

1 minute ago, Davey Baby said:

 

If that's correct then it was never a pen. Even if you're wrong it was never a pen. It was never a pen.

I agree, I didnt think it was a pen, I was merely trying to clarify the supposed law as far as I have understood it 🙂 

That said in a similar vein it cold be that my version is purely the FA's interpretation and UEFA have a different set of rules, similar to the offside variations in when the linesman should flag 

44 minutes ago, Bonzodog29 said:

I agree, I didnt think it was a pen, I was merely trying to clarify the supposed law as far as I have understood it 🙂 

That said in a similar vein it cold be that my version is purely the FA's interpretation and UEFA have a different set of rules, similar to the offside variations in when the linesman should flag 

So we've all spent two days arguing over a penalty that we didn't think was a penalty. Its nearly as bad as Brexit.

2 minutes ago, Andy North said:

So we've all spent two days arguing over a penalty that we didn't think was a penalty. Its nearly as bad as Brexit.

No it isnt 🙂 

1 hour ago, Andy North said:

So we've all spent two days arguing over a penalty that we didn't think was a penalty. Its nearly as bad as Brexit.

 

Maybe we should prorogue the forum for five weeks.

1 minute ago, Davey Baby said:

 

Maybe we should prorogue the forum for five weeks.

The Queen said f**k off !!

I think it was a penalty, his hands came out as the ball was headed by one of our players, he's obstructing the play with his hand out there. The only difference is in real time they aren't given becaues they're impossible to see, now with VAR you can see them, by the rules it's certainly a penalty. 

Watch how his hand comes out as the ball is headed and you'll know what I mean, you can't have your arm out like that. 

13 hours ago, Slojo said:

I think it was a penalty, his hands came out as the ball was headed by one of our players, he's obstructing the play with his hand out there. The only difference is in real time they aren't given becaues they're impossible to see, now with VAR you can see them, by the rules it's certainly a penalty. 

Watch how his hand comes out as the ball is headed and you'll know what I mean, you can't have your arm out like that. 

It was a soft penalty and we would have been furious if it had been given against us.

Just now, Andy North said:

It was a soft penalty and we would have been furious if it had been given against us.

This is generally the measure I use, how angry would I be if we had been on the receiving end

2 minutes ago, Andy North said:

It was a soft penalty and we would have been furious if it had been given against us.

Enough distance between Tomori and the defender ... it's not like it's point blank and he can't get his arm out of the way ... nothing soft about it at all.

If he scores the winner against the bin dippers this weekend all will be forgiven. 

19 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Enough distance between Tomori and the defender ... it's not like it's point blank and he can't get his arm out of the way ... nothing soft about it at all.

I've watched it a few times now (how sad is that?) and it was a bullet downward header from Tomori. He was max 5 yards away and the defender had his arm in a perfectly natural position. We was lucky to get the pen.

Would you have been happy to concede a decision like that?

3 hours ago, Andy North said:

I've watched it a few times now (how sad is that?) and it was a bullet downward header from Tomori. He was max 5 yards away and the defender had his arm in a perfectly natural position. We was lucky to get the pen.

Would you have been happy to concede a decision like that?

Yes - it clearly is a goal bound attempt that strikes his arm ... he has time to turn his head away, but leaves his arm sticking out ...

Pitch was Barkley's playground today. Only Grimsby but a very good game, a lot of clever little passes, a goal, a lot of the attacks went through him. 

As I mentioned in the Pulisic thread, I was actually annoyed at how much Barkley injected himself into the game when you have the likes of CHO / Pulisic and Gilmour in the match.

I thought Barkley was MOTM though as you suggest this was a different player from the one we see in the  EPL.

His goal was one he normally tries in the EPL once  a match and the keeper saves though not this time. 

Thought he could have had another when he played Pusilic through by going for the one-two, he didn't and the angle was too tight for Pulisic to convert.

I guess Barkley was good as he had more time and he definitely moved with more purpose than we see in the EPL. I hadn't seen him move quite so often or quite so quickly for a wile.

I had him as MOTM too. Combined really well with Gilmour who was also excellent.

I struggle to understand some of the opinions on Barkley. Yes, he won't be a nailed on starter when everyone is fit and available, but neither will Kovacic. Both good squad players who can do a job.

2 minutes ago, just said:

I had him as MOTM too. Combined really well with Gilmour who was also excellent.

I struggle to understand some of the opinions on Barkley. Yes, he won't be a nailed on starter when everyone is fit and available, but neither will Kovacic. Both good squad players who can do a job.

I agree with you on Barkley though think Kovacic has been our best MF the last two EPL games.

Edited September 26, 20196 yr by strider6004

On 26/09/2019 at 10:41, just said:

I had him as MOTM too. Combined really well with Gilmour who was also excellent.

I struggle to understand some of the opinions on Barkley. Yes, he won't be a nailed on starter when everyone is fit and available, but neither will Kovacic. Both good squad players who can do a job.

Kovacic is much better. 

Needs to step up a level.

Squad player ATM and we’ve still got a couple of midfielders out injured.